mUltimate Chopin

Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Omissions to cancel alteration

b. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

e1 in A (literal reading→FE,FC→GE), AB & EE2

e1 in ACh, CGS, EE1 & FES
..

According to us, it is much more likely that the missing  restoring e1, which would result in e1 at the end of the bar, is one of numerous such oversights of Chopin – see, e.g. the note to b. 8 and 12 as well as to the Prelude No. 7 in A Major, b. 13 or No. 18 in F Minor, b. 8. Therefore, we assume that the flats entered or added in ACh, CGS and FES define or restore the only correct text, which we adopt as the main one. However, the version with e1 has a consistent place in the history of music, e.g. as the theme of variations of Feruccio Busoni (BV 213a) and of Sergei Rachmaninoff (Op. 22).
The double revision in EE is noteworthy – first a  was added in EE1 and then it was removed in EE2.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Annotations in FES

b. 3

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

..

There is no  restoring b in the 2nd chord in AB, which is a patent oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Omissions to cancel alteration

b. 8-12

composition: Op. 28 No. 20, Prelude in C minor

d1 in A (literal reading→FC,FE) & CGS

d1 in AB, ACh, GE, EE & FES
..

The missing  restoring d1 is almost certainly an oversight of Chopin in A (→FC,FE), which is proven by the naturals in AB, ACh and the one added in b. 8 in FES. The accidentals were also added by the revisers of GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors of A , Errors repeated in FE